JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for hearing. 3. This petition challenges the order passed by the Collector, Latur in Dis - Qualification Application No.1 of 2007 dated 17.3.2007. 4. Brief resume of facts would suffice : General election of Udgir Municipal Council, District Latur ("the said council") was held on 19.11.2006. This election was for electing 33 councillors of the said council. The names of the elected councillors were published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette dated 27.11.2006. After declaration of results of the election, information as required by Rules 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules 1987 ("the Rules of 1987") was furnished to the Collector, Latur. Amongst the elected councillors, some belong to Indian National Congress and some belong to Nationalist Congress Party. Elections of the President and Vice- President were scheduled on 21.12.2006. Allegedly, on 21.12.2006, President of District Congress (I) committee had issued a whip (party direction) to all Congress (I) councillors. Said whip was served to the councillors concerned. . Respondent No.1 in the trial court, allegedly under the hands of party whip, filed his nomination for the post of President. Respondents 1 to 12 in the trial court, have voted contrary to the directions of the party to which they belong. According to the petitioners in the trial court, respondents 1 to 12 have attributed disqualification for being councillors of the said council. This Disqualification Application seems to have been filed on 10.1.2007 before the District Collector, Latur. S/shri Girish Patil and Baswaraj Bagbande were the petitioners in the said application. They are respondents 2 and 3 in the present petition. Twelve councillors, whose disqualification is sought, are respondents in the petition before the Collector. Out of those 12, respondents 5 and 8 are the petitioners in this petition and remaining respondents in that proceeding are also respondents in this writ petition. Parties, hereinafter, are being referred to their status as petitioners and respondents in the disqualification application pending before the Collector, Latur. 5. Learned Collector, Latur on receipt of the said application, issued notices to respondents. Copy of the said application is at Exhibit "A" to this petition. Parties, hereinafter, are being referred to their status as petitioners and respondents in the disqualification application pending before the Collector, Latur. 5. Learned Collector, Latur on receipt of the said application, issued notices to respondents. Copy of the said application is at Exhibit "A" to this petition. Respondents in the said application have filed an application under Rule 7 read with Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’ Disqualification Rules, 1987 ("Rules of 1987") before the Collector, Latur. Copy of the said application is at Exhibit "B" to the petition. By this application, an objection is raised that the conditions prescribed under Rule 6 of Rules of 1987 have not been complied with. According to respondents, the disqualification application filed by the petitioners has not been verified in the manner laid down in Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and large number of documents with the disqualification application have also not been signed by the petitioners and verified as provided under CPC. Regarding affidavit of one Prof. Motipawale, objection raised is that said affidavit seems to have been filed on 8.1.2007, however, it was sworn on 10.1.2007. Respondents, by this application, ultimately prayed for revocation of the notice dated 15.1.2007 issued by the Collector, Latur and further sought dismissal of the disqualification under Rule 7(2) of the Rules of 1987. It is signed by all 12 councillors who are respondents in the disqualification application No.1 of 2007. 6. A reply is filed by petitioners to the said application. Copy is at Exhibit "C" to this petition. After denial, it is pointed out that the verification is proper. There are no annexures with the disqualification application. However, the documents are pertaining to documentary evidence and therefore, does not require verification. It is clarified that the affidavit of Prof. Motipawale is also legal and proper. The petition was prepared on 8.1.2007, however, sworn on the date of filing i.e. 10.1.2007. Ultimately, it was requested that the application be rejected. 7. After hearing parties, the learned Collector rejected the objection raised by the respondents on 17.3.2007. Said order is challenged in this writ petition. 8. The petitioners’ counsel submit that the rejection of disqualification application is wrong and illegal. He, however, fairly admits that defect of verification is curable. Ultimately, it was requested that the application be rejected. 7. After hearing parties, the learned Collector rejected the objection raised by the respondents on 17.3.2007. Said order is challenged in this writ petition. 8. The petitioners’ counsel submit that the rejection of disqualification application is wrong and illegal. He, however, fairly admits that defect of verification is curable. Factually he admits that the application for amendment is filed by original petitioners and was pending on the date of passing of the order impugned in this petition. In support of his submissions he relied on various judicial pronouncements. 9. Learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.2 has invited my attention to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Shilpa Subhash Vs. Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad [1991(1) Mh.L.J. 524] 524]. It seems that the point of verification before the appropriate authority envisaged under Rule 6(4) was under consideration in the said matter. In the said case, the Division Bench has considered the provision laid down under Rule 6(4) of the Rules as well as order VI Rule 15 of CPC. In the present case, facts are otherwise. Grievance is raised in respect of incorrect verification of the disqualification application proper as well as absolutely no verification regarding documents / annexures to the said application. Shri Shah, learned Senior Advocate, as noted above, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh Vs. Shinder Pal Singh 341] [(207) 1 SCC 341]. An election for the post of Sarpanch and panchas of the Gram Panchayat, village Ransih Khurd, District Moga, held on 29.6.2003, under the provisions of Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 was under consideration in the said case. In the said case, the Apex Court has considered the verification under Order VI Rule 15 of CPC. It has been held that, the verification "of his own knowledge" and "upon information received and believed to be true" should be separately specified. A factual statement made in the petition cannot be both true to the knowledge and belief of the deponent. I have perused the verification of petition proper, copy of which is made available. It has been held that, the verification "of his own knowledge" and "upon information received and believed to be true" should be separately specified. A factual statement made in the petition cannot be both true to the knowledge and belief of the deponent. I have perused the verification of petition proper, copy of which is made available. This verification reads as; " We, the petitioners, state on solemn affirmation that the contents of the above petition are read over and explained to us in Marathi and the same are found to be true and correct to the best of our knowledge, belief and information. Hence verified ......" I have also perused the findings recorded by the District Collector in the impugned order regarding verification. The Collector has observed that there is basic difference in the scheme of verification as laid down in the Peoples’ Representation Act and Maharashtra Local Authorities Disqualification Act, 1986. With this observation, the learned Collector held that the verification of the petition is legal and proper. (emphasis supplied). 10. Having considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Baldev Singh (supra), the verification of the disqualification application read with Rule 6(3) of the Rules of 1987, in my view, is not proper and in consonance with the Rules of 1987. Finding of the learned District Collector on this point needs to be quashed and set aside. However, admittedly, the application for amendment seeking permission for proper verification of the disqualification application is pending before the learned District Collector, Latur. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly admits that the defect in the verification is curable. That application can be considered and decided by the learned District Collector, Latur. 11. Another grievance raised by the petitioners is in respect of non verification of the annexures to the petition. Learned Senior Advocate Shri Shah has invited my attention to the various documents, copies of which are filed on record. He referred to the following documents in this context :- (i). Written communication under the signature of Shri Zanwar, President, District Congress (I) Committee, Latur to Returning Officer, Udgir Municipal Council, dated 26.12.2006. (ii). Written communication under the signature of Smt. Prabha Rao, Chairperson, Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee to Shri Vishwanath Chakote, dated 23.11.2006. (iii). Written communication by District President, Congress (I) Committee, Latur to Advocate Kale and Prof. Motipawale, dated 10.10.2006. (iv). (ii). Written communication under the signature of Smt. Prabha Rao, Chairperson, Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee to Shri Vishwanath Chakote, dated 23.11.2006. (iii). Written communication by District President, Congress (I) Committee, Latur to Advocate Kale and Prof. Motipawale, dated 10.10.2006. (iv). Communication by Shri Zanwar, District Congress (I) President, Latur to 12 councillors dated 19.12.2006. (v). Whip issued by Congress (I) party to the petitioner Girish Patil dated 19.12.2006. (vi). Whip/direction dated 25.12.2006. (vii). Communication by Prof. Motipawale and Advocate Kale to Shri Zanwar, President, District Congress (I) Committee, dated 21.12.2006. 12. Shri Shah, learned Senior Advocate has also invited my attention to the disqualification application from paragraph No.5 onwards. According to him, all these documents / communications are referred cursorily in this disqualification application. These documents are therefore, integral part of the disqualification application and therefore have attributed the status of annexures. In other words, according to him, all these documents which are annexed with disqualification application are annexures to the petition within the meaning of Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 1987. In consonance with said Rule 6(4) every petition and annexure thereto shall be signed by the petitioners and verified in the manner laid down under CPC. According to him, there is total lack of verification in relation to all these annexures. Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 1987 is mandatory in nature and in the absence of such verification to the annexures, disqualification application ought to have been dismissed by the learned Collector, without issuing notices thereon and without proceeding on merits. 13. Shri Gangapurwala, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 has invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Sahodrabai Vs. Ram Singh ( AIR 1968 SC 1079 ) 1079). This was the civil appeal before the Apex Court under the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. In paragraph No.12 of the said judgment, the Apex Court, while considering the provisions of Section 81(3) of the said Act, has held that the averments in the petition with regard to pamphlet were themselves the part of the petition and therefore, pamphlet was served upon the respondents although in a translation and not in original. It has been further held; "..... It has been further held; "..... Even if this be not the case, we are quite clear that sub-section (2) of Section 83 has reference not to document which is produced as evidence of the averments of the election petition but to averments of the election petition which are put in not in the election petition but in the accompanying schedules or annexures. We can give quite a number of examples from which it would be apparent that many of the averments of the election petition are capable of being put as schedules or annexures. For example, the details of the corrupt practice there in the former days used to be set out separately in the schedules and which may, in some cases, be so done even after the amendment of the present law. Similarly, details of the averments too compendious for bearing included in the election petition may be set out in the schedules or annexures to the election petition. The law then requires that even though they are outside the election petition, they must be signed and verified, but such annexures or schedules are then treated as integrated with the election petition and copies of them must be served on the respondents if the requirement regarding service of the election petition is to be wholly complied with." (emphasis supplied). Shri Gangapurwala, learned Advocate for the respondents, therefore, submits that here in this case, annexures are produced on record by the petitioners by way of documentary evidence and they are not the annexures. 14. Shri Shah, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Mulayam Singh Yadav Vs. Dharampal Yadav [ AIR 2001 SC 2565 ] 2565]. In the said case, the Apex Court has held that the video cassette mentioned and verified in Schedule 14 is an integral part of the election petition and that it should have been filed in the Court along with the copies thereof for service upon the respondents to the election petition. In this Civil Appeal before the Apex Court, Section 81(3) of the Representation of Peoples’ Act, 1951 was considered. 15. In this Civil Appeal before the Apex Court, Section 81(3) of the Representation of Peoples’ Act, 1951 was considered. 15. On query to learned Senior Advocate Shri Shah for the petitioners, he fairly admits that the expression "annexure" used in Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 1987 is not defined under the provisions of the Act of 1986 or Rules of 1987. The expression "annexure" seems to have been derived from the Latin word "annectere" meaning "to tie or bind to. To attach, and often, specifically, to subjoin. To add to; to unite. The word expresses the idea of joining a smaller or subordinate thing with another, larger, or of higher importance. To consolidate, as school districts. To make an integral part of something larger. " (Ref. - Black’s Law Dictionary, VI Edition, 1990). 16. Though I am not dealing with the provisions laid down under Section 81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, in my opinion, reference to the word "annexure" in relation to Section 81(3) of the Act of 1951 and the meaning of the said expression given in Black’s Dictionary can be considered while resolving the issue raised in this petition. If the author of the petition refers to the contents of the documents used in the election petition to that of the pleadings or averments in the said election petition, such document can be said to be annexure. Such annexure of the petition, therefore, has to be verified in view of the provisions laid down under Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 1987. However, Section 6(3)(b) also refers to copies of other accompaniments of the documentary evidence along with "every petition to be filed before the authority". Thus, it is contemplated that the petition shall be accompanied by copies of documentary evidence (Section 6(3)(b)) on which the petitioner relies and not an annexure thereby, as contemplated under Rule 6(4) of the Rules of 1987. It is apropos to refer to definition of "document" under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Expression "document" means "any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter." A writing is a document and the words printed, lithographed or photographed also can be said to be documents. . . Another expression "evidence" is also defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act and it means and includes, " (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; (2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence." The expression "fact" is also defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act to mean and include, " (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious." With these definitions, it can be said that a man heard or saw something is a fact, that a man said certain words is a fact and a man has a certain reputation, is a fact. 17. Rule 6(3)(a) of the Rules of 1987 obligates that every petition shall contain the concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and shall be accompanied by copies of the documents, if any, on which the petitioner relies (Rule 3(b)) and any annexure thereto shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the matter laid down under the CPC (Rule 6(4)). This conjoint reading of Rule 6(3) and (4) needs to be considered while considering the meaning of expression "annexure". In my view, therefore, the requirement of Rule 6(3) and (4) seems to be that the petitioner shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies and shall be accompanied by copies of the documentary evidence, if any, on which the petitioner relies. If the petitioner relies on any information furnished to him by any person, the statement containing names and addresses of such person and existence of such information as furnished by such person as well as any annexure thereto signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in CPC for verification of the pleadings. Considering in this perspective, "annexure" may be a document by way of an integral part of the petition. If it is not so, the documents which are accompanied with the petition can be said to be in view of the provisions laid down under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Rules of 1987 by way of documentary evidence. Considering in this perspective, "annexure" may be a document by way of an integral part of the petition. If it is not so, the documents which are accompanied with the petition can be said to be in view of the provisions laid down under Rule 6(3)(b) of the Rules of 1987 by way of documentary evidence. In the case at hand, in my view, the documents which are produced along with the disqualification application are accompaniments by way of copies of the documentary evidence and therefore, verification as contemplated under Rule 6(4) shall not apply to such documents. Having considered the disqualification application and the nature of copies of the documents tagged with the said application, in my view, these are the copies of the accompanied documents produced on record by way of documentary evidence by the petitioners. These documents cannot be branded as annexure to the petition therefore, verification of these documents is totally out of question. The learned Collector, therefore, justifiably has rejected the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners in this regard. 18. Learned Collector, Latur has referred to the alleged infirmity in the affidavit of Prof. Motipawale. In his order he has observed that, dates in the affidavit cannot be considered at this stage. The matter can be dealt at length during the main course of hearing. I have considered this application on behalf of the respondents regarding various dates of the affidavit. Learned counsel for the respondents is not serious on this objection regarding the affidavit. This writ petition can be allowed in part so far defective verification of the petition proper is concerned. There is no substance in other objections raised and to that part of the order passed by the learned District Collector, Latur can be maintained. 19. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. Objection regarding verification of the disqualification application No.1 of 2007 (proper) is accepted and the order passed by the District Collector to that effect is quashed and set aside. The amendment application filed by the petitioners by way of correction to the verification shall be heard and disposed of by the District Collector, Latur in accordance with the provisions of law. . The order passed by the District Collector, Latur regarding objection in relation to verification of the alleged annexures with disqualification application No.1 of 2007 is upheld and petition to that effect is dismissed. . The order passed by the District Collector, Latur regarding objection in relation to verification of the alleged annexures with disqualification application No.1 of 2007 is upheld and petition to that effect is dismissed. Rule, in above terms, is made absolute. No order as to costs. 20. Authentic copy of this order, duly signed by the Court Shirastedar, be made available, on request, to the party concerned, after following usual office procedure.